It has become a common refrain during Google's antitrust saga: What happened to "don't be evil?" Google's unofficial motto has haunted it as it has grown ever larger, but a shareholder lawsuit sought to rein in some of the company's excesses. And it might be working. The plaintiffs in the case have reached a settlement with Google parent company Alphabet, which will spend a boatload of cash on "comprehensive" reforms. The goal is to steer Google away from the kind of anticompetitive practices that got it in hot water.
Under the terms of the settlement, obtained by Bloomberg Law, Alphabet will spend $500 million over the next 10 years on systematic reforms. The company will have to form a board-level committee devoted to overseeing the company's regulatory compliance and antitrust risk, a rarity for US firms. This group will report directly to CEO Sundar Pichai. There will also be reforms at other levels of the company that allow employees to identify potential legal pitfalls before they affect the company. Google has also agreed to preserve communications. Google's propensity to use auto-deleting chats drew condemnation from several judges overseeing its antitrust cases.
The agreement still needs approval from US District Judge Rita Lin in San Francisco, but that's mainly a formality at this point. Naturally, Alphabet does not admit to any wrongdoing under the terms of the settlement, but it may have to pay tens of millions in legal fees on top of the promised $500 million investment.
© Aurich Lawson
On August 5th, 2024, Judge Amit Mehta ruled in the case of United States of America v. Google, saying, “…the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly. It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.”
That ended the biggest tech antitrust trial since the US took on Microsoft in the 1990s — possibly aside from the government’s antitrust case targeting Google’s ad business — but it’s also just the start of the process. Now, lawyers for Google and the Department of Justice are arguing over the ruling, as well as what to do about the company and its products.
The DOJ argued that Google struck anticompetitive deals with Apple and other companies for prime placement of its search engine. Google maintains that its dominant market share is the result of a superior product. The DOJ says options to resolve the situation include breaking up Google to separate products like Chrome, Search, and Android, but it may be a while until we hear about their full plan.
Read on below for all of the updates and notes from the case.
For five weeks, the Federal Trade Commission asked a federal judge to imagine a world where Instagram and WhatsApp flourished outside Meta's control instead of being acquired by the tech giant. In the sixth and final week of trial, Meta asked Judge James Boasberg to consider that actually, these apps might be as good as they can get.
Meta rested its case Wednesday after a brief four days in court (many of its witnesses were also called by the FTC, so it already had the chance to question them in prior weeks). In those final days, Meta called on WhatsApp cofounder Brian Acton and an early Instagram infrastructure executive to explain how Meta helped those apps grow in ways they'd be unlikely to otherwise - countering testimony from Instagram cofounder Kevin Systrom, who claimed Meta withheld resources to help the app grow and become safer, and believed Instagram would have still been a hit on its own.
Meta argues that far from becoming competitors that checked Meta's power, Instagram and WhatsApp might have withered, remaining far less useful or accessible to consumers than they are today.
Several Meta witnesses also called out the elephant in the room: TikTok. The FTC says tha …
Meta thinks there's no reason to carry on with its defense after the Federal Trade Commission closed its monopoly case, and the company has moved to end the trial early by claiming that the FTC utterly failed to prove its case.
"The FTC has no proof that Meta has monopoly power," Meta's motion for judgment filed Thursday said, "and therefore the court should rule in favor of Meta."
According to Meta, the FTC failed to show evidence that "the overall quality of Meta’s apps has declined" or that the company shows too many ads to users. Meta says that's "fatal" to the FTC's case that the company wielded monopoly power to pursue more ad revenue while degrading user experience over time (an Internet trend known as "enshittification"). And on top of allegedly showing no evidence of "ad load, privacy, integrity, and features" degradation on Meta apps, Meta argued there's no precedent for an antitrust claim rooted in this alleged harm.
© Bloomberg / Contributor | Bloomberg
When Adam Mosseri took over Meta-owned Instagram as CEO in 2018, the app was experiencing what he'd later call "concerning" drops and plateaus in user engagement, thanks partly to fierce competition from a new app: TikTok. Instagram estimated in 2019 that 23 percent of the decline in time spent on Instagram in the US was due to TikTok. Bytedance's video app kept expanding through the onset of the covid-19 pandemic. "We can't explain it all, but what's clear at this point is that we need to adapt, and do so quickly," Mosseri wrote to his team in March 2020. Instagram needed to recover, he testified Thursday in a DC courtroom, because "you're either growing, or you're slowly dying."
Mosseri described the dire situation while testifying in the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust trial against Meta, where the government alleges the company illegally monopolized the market for personal social networking services, a category that it says includes Snapchat but not more entertainment-focused apps like YouTube or TikTok. Mosseri's testimony highlighted how much Instagram sees itself as in competition with TikTok, but it also showed that even as entertainment content becomes a larger port …
Drew Angerer/Getty
Instagram has spent big bucks on wooing content creators.
Adam Mosseri, Instagram's top executive, took the stand on Thursday to testify during the ongoing FTC antitrust trial against Meta. The FTC has accused Meta of acting as a monopoly in personal social networking with its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.
Mosseri testified that the company has "invested hundreds of millions, maybe a billion or two, over the course of my tenure" on creators.
Mosseri said the money included both incentives as well as the physical infrastructure that makes it possible for the app to expand a creator's reach.
In 2018, Mosseri took over as head of Instagram after the app's original cofounders stepped down from the company. Since then, creators have gradually become more and more of a core focus for the Meta-owned company.
Instagram has launched (and shut down) a handful of creator monetization programs since 2020 to compete with other platforms like YouTube and TikTok, which also pay creators. Some programs, like Instagram's "Bonuses," that pay creators for content like reels or photos, are limited and invite-only. Earlier this year, Meta had offered some creators between $2,500 to $50,000 a month to post content to Instagram.
"We believe creators are becoming more and more relevant over time," Mosseri said at another point during his testimony. "We are just seeing more and more power shift from institutions to individuals across the industry."
Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images
Is Google screwed?
That's the $2 trillion question the tech world is trying to understand following Wednesday's blockbuster news: A top Apple executive said search queries on the company's Safari browser were declining because people were using AI engines like ChatGPT instead.
Investors immediately acted as if Google's astonishing run at the top of the tech heap was over, and slashed the company's stock by more than 8%.
But a day later, Google's stock was climbing back up a bit, and there's a healthy debate about what Cue's statement means — as well as why he said it.
Spoiler: I'm not going to solve this one today. But let's at least look at the argument.
The most obvious way to view Cue's comments was the way Wall Street did: that Google search dominance was being eroded by AI competitors.
After all, fear of being usurped by AI is what pushed Google to fast-track its own AI efforts, even when some of those efforts created embarrassing results.
But later on Wednesday, Google put out a statement that basically said Cue was wrong, without actually saying that out loud. Instead, the company said it was continuing to see increasing searches, and "that includes an increase in total queries coming from Apple's devices and platforms."
So that looks like two of the world's most powerful and valuable companies are disagreeing over basic, knowable facts.
But people who pay attention to this stuff are focusing on three key words in Google's statement: "total," "devices," and "platforms." And the absence of another word: "Safari."
And that's leading them to translate Google's statement this way: "Maybe Apple really is seeing fewer searches on Safari, the default web browser on iPhones. But you can use Google in other ways on iPhones — namely, via the Google app, but also via Google's own Chrome browser. And people are using those more — enough to counter any decline elsewhere."
Assuming that this translation is accurate, that should reassure Google and its boosters a bit, though not completely: Cue said the searches on Safari were down for the first time ever, and that's not the kind of signal you can just wave away.
And even if Safari Google searchers are really moving to things like the Google app instead, that also underlines the fact that people who used to just type something into their iPhone browser know now they can get results other ways. And there's no reason they couldn't also be searching on Google competitors like ChatGPT.
A Google rep declined to comment; Apple hasn't responded to my request for comment.
Google investors, by the way, don't seem 100% convinced by Google's statement: The stock is up 3% on Thursday, which means Google is still worth 5% less than it was Wednesday morning, when Cue started testifying in the US vs. Google antitrust trial.
Which brings us to the second question Google and Apple watchers are speculating about: Why did Cue say what he said in court, after all?
I'm an Occam's razor guy, so my first take was that Cue answered the questions he was asked in court.
But there's also a 4D chess argument, put forth by folks like MoffettNathanson's analyst Michael Nathanson. It goes like this: Cue has an incentive to portray Google as a wounded animal.
That's because Google pays Apple at least $20 billion a year to make Google the default search engine on Safari (that's the reason Cue has insight into Google's search activity), and a federal judge has already declared that Google has an illegal monopoly in search.
And one of the remedies the judge could push for would be to prevent Google from paying Apple for that valuable real estate — which would mean Apple could lose all of that high-margin revenue.
So, the theory goes, convincing the judge that Google no longer has a stranglehold on search, because of AI competition, might allow those payments to keep flowing after all.
That theory also helps explain Google's muted response on Wednesday night, where the company tried to walk the line between tooting its own horn (which bucks up investors but could damage its legal argument) and acknowledging that it has real competition (which could help Google in court but hurt it in the market).
Which brings us back to where we started: Is Google really starting to lose out to the ChatGPTs of the world, and entering a permanent decline, just like pay-TV networks a decade ago? Or is it holding its own despite the competition? Depending on where you're asking the question, Google might give you a different answer.
Correction: May 8, 2025 — An earlier version of this story misstated which company the Safari browser belongs to. It's Apple, not Google.
The long-awaited antitrust trial between Meta and the Federal Trade Commission kicked off on April 14th. Over about two months, DC District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg is hearing arguments about whether then-Facebook illegally monopolized the market for “personal social networking services” through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.
The FTC first brought the case in late 2020. While it was initially thrown out by the judge, he let an amended version move forward after the government beefed up details about why it thinks Meta is a monopoly. This phase of the trial will help the judge determine if Meta is liable for breaking antitrust law. If he finds that to be true, he’ll later rule on how those harms should be remedied. The FTC is pushing for Instagram and WhatsApp should be spun off.
This is the third US trial seeking to break up Big Tech in recent years, following the Justice Department’s two separate cases against Google over its search and ad tech businesses.
Read below for all of our updates on the FTC v. Meta case.
After a stinging rebuke in the lower courts over its legal battle with Epic, Apple filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Monday. The appeal will challenge last week’s ruling that prevents the company from charging developers fees on purchases made outside the App Store.
In 2021, the Epic v. Apple lawsuit resulted in a court order enjoining Apple from anti-steering activities — that is, hindering developers from telling users to make purchases outside of the app. The case was revived last year when Epic Games alleged that Apple had violated that court order.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers not only agreed with Epic Games but also found that Apple’s Vice President of Finance, Alex Roman, had lied under oath and referred the matter to the district’s federal prosecutor for potential criminal investigation. The judge additionally sanctioned Apple for “misuse of attorney-client privilege designations to delay proceedings.”
Testimony this week from Google’s antitrust trial shows that Google gives Samsung an “enormous sum of money” each month to preinstall the Gemini AI app on Samsung devices, reports Bloomberg. Now that Judge Amit Mehta has ruled Google’s search engine is an illegal monopoly, its lawyers are sparring with the DOJ over how severe a potential penalty should be.
Peter Fitzgerald, Google’s vice president of platforms and device partnerships, testified on Monday that Google’s payments to Samsung started in January. That’s after Google was found to have violated antitrust law, partially due to similar arrangements with Apple, Samsung, and other companies for search. When Samsung launched the Galaxy S25 series in January, it also added Gemini as the default AI assistant when long-pressing the power button, with its own Bixby assistant taking a back seat.
The Information reports that today Fitzgerald testified that other companies had pitched Samsung on deals to preinstall their AI assistant apps, including Perplexity and Microsoft. But a DOJ lawyer pointed out that Google’s letters attempting to amend its deal with phone makers, which the company presented at the hearing, were only sent last week, just ahead of the trial. Also, internal slides presented today apparently showed that Google “was considering more restrictive distribution agreements that would have required partners to preinstall Gemini alongside Search and Chrome,” The Information writes.
According to Bloomberg, Fitzgerald said the Gemini deal is a two-year agreement that, along with fixed monthly payments, sees Google giving Samsung a percentage of its subscription revenue for the Gemini app. Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyer David Dahlquist called the fixed monthly payment an “enormous sum,” Bloomberg says. Exactly how enormous isn’t known.
If the DOJ has its way, the results of these hearings could mean Google is forbidden from striking default placement deals in the future, would sell Chrome, and would be forced to license the vast majority of the data that powers Google Search. Google has argued that it should only have to give up the default placement deals.
Correction April 26th: This story previously said Samsung receives a percentage of ads revenue from the Gemini app, as originally reported by Bloomberg. We’ve updated the story to reflect that Google shares Gemini subscription revenue instead.
The remedy phase of Google's antitrust trial is underway, with the government angling to realign Google's business after the company was ruled a search monopolist. The Department of Justice is seeking a plethora of penalties, but perhaps none as severe as forcing Google to sell Chrome. But who would buy it? An OpenAI executive says his employer would be interested.
Among the DOJ's witnesses on the second day of the trial was Nick Turley, head of product for ChatGPT at OpenAI. He wasn't there to talk about Chrome exclusively—the government's proposed remedies also include forcing Google to share its search index with competitors.
OpenAI is in bed with Microsoft, but Bing's search data wasn't cutting it, Turley suggested (without naming Microsoft). "We believe having multiple partners, and in particular Google's API, would enable us to provide a better product to users," OpenAI told Google in an email revealed at trial. However, Google turned OpenAI down because it believed the deal would harm its lead in search. The companies have no ongoing partnership today, but Turley noted that forcing Google to license its search data would restore competition.
© Getty Images | Vincent Feuray
Login